- From: <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:30:39 -0700
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97
Summary: new error code descriptions
Product: WebDAV-RFC2518-bis
Version: -07
Platform: Other
URL: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-
rfc2518bis-07.html#rfc.section.11.6
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: 11. Use of HTTP Status Codes
AssignedTo: joe-bugzilla@cursive.net
ReportedBy: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
QAContact: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
As stated earlier, I think it's a mistake to repeat what other specs already say
normatively. In the best case, it's text duplication. In other case, it just
creates confusion, such as in:
"Any request may contain a conditional header defined in HTTP (If-Match,
If-Modified-Since, etc.) or the "If" conditional header defined in this
specification. If the request contains a conditional header, and if that
condition fails to hold, then this error code may be returned. This status code
is not typically appropriate if the client did not include a conditional header
in the request."
What is the last sentence trying to state here? Does this mean there are cases
where it is appropriate to send a 412 although there was no conditional header?
What case would that be?
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 06:30:45 UTC